Court adjourns case against Binace


The money laundering case against Binance Holdings Limited and its personnel has been postponed by a Federal High Court in Abuja until April 8.After hearing the arguments from both sides on the delivery of the charge to Binance Holdings Limited, the trial judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, postponed the case for a ruling.


The arraignment of the defendants, Binance Holdings Limited and Tigran Gambaryan, on charges related to money laundering was scheduled for Thursday. However, the proceedings were delayed due to an objection raised by the lawyer of the second defendant, Mark Mordi (SAN).


The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has said that Binance, Gambaryan, and Nadeem Anjarwalla, who is currently on the run, deliberately hid the origin of the $35,400,000 earned as income by Binance in Nigeria.


They were aware that these funds were obtained via illegal means. The anti-corruption agency stated that the crimes were perpetrated in Abuja between January 2023 and December 2023. These actions are in violation of and can be penalised under Section 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

During the hearings, Mordi argued that his client should not be charged due to the EFCC’s inability to deliver flawless service to Binance Holdings Limited.Mordi stated that this issue is premature.


The prosecution should have formally notified the first defendant, but that has not occurred. The litigation is a collaborative effort, and the prosecution should take the necessary action.

We cannot continue without having successfully served the initial defendant. However, the lawyer for the EFCC, E.E. Iheanacho had a different opinion.


The second defendant was identified as a representative of the first defendant in the nation. It was mentioned that the charge against him was separated on behalf of the firm, but it was ultimately rejected.He stated that the second defendant serves as a representation of the first defendant. We provided him with our service, but he declined it.


The court has the authority to submit a plea of not guilty on his behalf and continue with the trial, as stipulated in Section 478 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. In response to Iheanacho’s statement, Mordi contended that the prosecution counsel failed to include Section 477 of the Act he referenced. He stated that the corporation had failed to properly designate his client to take the fee on its behalf. Mordi stated that Section 477 was excluded.

By Nnaemeka Odenigbo


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *